Map Name: Research and ConquerMapmaker(s): OliverFA, Tacktix, isaiah40Number of Territories: 243Special Features: Collections, Conditional Borders, BombardmentsWhat Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: "Civilization meets Conquer Club". A map in which you will be able to research new and better ways of destroying your enemies. But also a map in which you don't need to kill everybody else to win, as you can win by researching the ultimate technology.

Starting Regions:You will start with the same Homeland Capital and Laboratory. Example, you will start with SW Lab and SW Capital.Laboratories - 3Homeland Capitals - 3

Bombardments:Sabotage --> MinesDoomsday Device --> land regions, not any of the labs, basic or advanced researchesTop Secret Facility --> all of it's homeland researches. i.e. SW Top Secret Facility can only bombard any SW research

Sounds interesting. I'm not sure you can change the general reinforcements though with the current xml. Like a minimum +3 bonus could not be changed depending on if you own a region or not. I'm not sure though - someone else will have to chime in. As far as the concept - i really like it. Like 2 maps in one. Nice thinking outside the box Oliver. Are you willing to start a map using this concept? I say go for it.

Androidz wrote:Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.

There are different ways to make the tech tree:

1 - Simple line in which you have to research all the techs in order. Starting tech attacks tech 1. Tech 1 attacks Tech 2 and so on.

The goo thing about approach 1 is that it is simple. The bad things is that all players are forced to research in the same order, and gives the players less freedom.

2 - Basic techs can be researched in any order, with advanced techs having basic techs as requisite.

This is what I proposed. I think this is better because gives players more freedom. The bad part is that a player that does not understand the rules can attack (research) many techs at the same time. But I think that if rules were clear enough, taht would not happen.

In my opinion this opens more possiblities. Player A can research the tech to enhance territory bonus while player B can research the tech to enhance continent bonus and player C researchs the "research speed" tech so he can always deploy on the geographical map and not have to deply on the research map. Each player will have a different strategy, which I think is good.

3 - Complex tech tree, with some techs acting as requsites for others and so on. Like a compromise option between 1 and 2.

This could be good, but even if we are creative and use imagination, looks like we are limited in the number of possible techs and don't know if it would work with so few techs.

Androidz wrote:EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.

As I said, the concept is borrowed from Civilization like games. And such games always have a Winning tech. That is why I included it. But of course this is an idea and is open to debate about how to make it better and possibly implement it.

I think is nice to have an alternative way to win. If a player sees that he is doomed on the geographical map he could concentrate on research with what he still has and try to win anyway. On the other side, the winning player would have to speed the conquest to win before research is finished, not having the luxury of consolidating what he has already conquered.

Of course, the cost of winning tech would have to be high enough to ensure it is not the easiest way to win the game. So it would have lots lots of neutrals in it.

Androidz wrote:Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.

There are different ways to make the tech tree:

1 - Simple line in which you have to research all the techs in order. Starting tech attacks tech 1. Tech 1 attacks Tech 2 and so on.

The goo thing about approach 1 is that it is simple. The bad things is that all players are forced to research in the same order, and gives the players less freedom.

2 - Basic techs can be researched in any order, with advanced techs having basic techs as requisite.

This is what I proposed. I think this is better because gives players more freedom. The bad part is that a player that does not understand the rules can attack (research) many techs at the same time. But I think that if rules were clear enough, taht would not happen.

In my opinion this opens more possiblities. Player A can research the tech to enhance territory bonus while player B can research the tech to enhance continent bonus and player C researchs the "research speed" tech so he can always deploy on the geographical map and not have to deply on the research map. Each player will have a different strategy, which I think is good.

3 - Complex tech tree, with some techs acting as requsites for others and so on. Like a compromise option between 1 and 2.

This could be good, but even if we are creative and use imagination, looks like we are limited in the number of possible techs and don't know if it would work with so few techs.

Androidz wrote:EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.

As I said, the concept is borrowed from Civilization like games. And such games always have a Winning tech. That is why I included it. But of course this is an idea and is open to debate about how to make it better and possibly implement it.

I think is nice to have an alternative way to win. If a player sees that he is doomed on the geographical map he could concentrate on research with what he still has and try to win anyway. On the other side, the winning player would have to speed the conquest to win before research is finished, not having the luxury of consolidating what he has already conquered.

Of course, the cost of winning tech would have to be high enough to ensure it is not the easiest way to win the game. So it would have lots lots of neutrals in it.

RjBeals wrote:Sounds interesting. I'm not sure you can change the general reinforcements though with the current xml. Like a minimum +3 bonus could not be changed depending on if you own a region or not. I'm not sure though - someone else will have to chime in. As far as the concept - i really like it. Like 2 maps in one. Nice thinking outside the box Oliver. Are you willing to start a map using this concept? I say go for it.

Thanks for your comments, RjBeals

Yes. You can change the minimum reinforcement bonus, by using the <minreinforcement> XML tag. Or at least so it says in the XML tutorial here viewtopic.php?t=23382

Anyway, it would not be needed to change the minimum reinforcements. For example, let's suppose that there is a tech called "Raise minimum reinforcements limit" that raises it from 3 to 6. Just by making the territory that represents this technology a 1-territory continent that gives a +3 bonus, the effect would be accomplised. If there is an "Advanced raise minimum reinforcements limit" tech that raises it again from 6 to 12, it would be enough to make this new tech another 1 territory continent giving a +6 bonus.

I really would like to start a map using this concept. But I thougt it would be better to discuss the idea a little bit before actually starting the map project. Or do you think I should start the map project right now? Also, despite I could do all the XML coding, I am not very good at graphics. So I would need someone to do the graphics (of course he would be considered co-author of the map and receive full credit for it) or spend a lot of time learning how to do the graphics myself (most likely the first option. Plus is nice to work in team).

Why bother with the geographical map? Just go for the winning tech, possibly going through research boosts if those would help more than the effort it takes to get them.

I'd say put the objectives on the geographical map - but then, one could have an 8 player game in which 6 players are reduced to research-only, and the other 2 take a long time to knock each other off the geographical map.

Winged Cat wrote:Why bother with the geographical map? Just go for the winning tech, possibly going through research boosts if those would help more than the effort it takes to get them.

I'd say put the objectives on the geographical map - but then, one could have an 8 player game in which 6 players are reduced to research-only, and the other 2 take a long time to knock each other off the geographical map.

thanks for your comments Winged Cat.

The winning tech, if there is finally one, is supposed to be an alternative. And for that reason has to be balanced with the "traditional" victory. If one victory was easy than the other, all players would only go for it.

As I said, I envision it more like an alternative. Do I attack and try to conquer all the map? Or do I fortify now that I have a decent empire, boost my economy through research and try to win the game "peacefully"?

Would this be like a tech tree on one part of the map and a land based part the other?If so i full ysupport this, if there was a little example i think it would explain itself a little better - but i didnt fully read your first post - as i was in a rush.

Research Boost: Yes and No... Autodeploy bonuses are strictly hold territory get auto deploy (at the moment - a few maps are crying out for continent autodeploy)

Minimum reinforcements increase: Can't do subject to Continent/territory ownership - can do as a whole for a map.

Reinforcements per territories held: Can be replicated by creating a lot of continents.

Increase continent bonuses: Yes.

Winning tech: Yes.

C.

Hey Yeti_C! Is an honour to have you commenting on my idea

Research boost: I have seen many maps that autodeploy troops to some territories (like the castles in the feudal map). In that case, the armies would be autodeployed directly to the Research Boost technology, and the player could fortify to the Starting Tech Territory (Maybe "Lab" or "Research Center" is a better name?) and attach from them to other techs (aka "research the other techs). Of course, that would not work well with adjacent reinforcements, but it would work with unlimited reinforcements, and would create an interesting dilemma in chained.

Minimum reinforcements: Yes, I know it cannot be subject to a territory ownership. What I am saying is that if you make the techs 1-territory continents and give bonus for holding those continents, the effect is the same.

Reinforcement per territories: Yes I was thinking about that. Removing real reinforcement bonuses per territories and then simulate them with a lot of continents.

t-o-m wrote:Would this be like a tech tree on one part of the map and a land based part the other?If so i full ysupport this, if there was a little example i think it would explain itself a little better - but i didnt fully read your first post - as i was in a rush.

Tom, it is exactly as you say. Both areas of the map would be completely separated.

Basically, when you use your reinforcements each turn you have to decide if the reinforcement will be used to create an army (deploy in geographical map) or a research unit (deploy in the tech tree area of the board). As both areas are not connected, there is no way to reinforce from one area to the other.

I must say OliverFA - you deserve a great welcome to the foundry. fresh Ideas and good attitude - exactly what we need around here. I'm partial to classic style gameplay, but have been wanting to broaden my range. I'll try to think through what you've posted so I can grasp the idea better. I hope you stick around here

Ok. There is an example. To make it simpler let's suppose just two techs. The geographical area is just a normal map, so I won't represent it. As colour codesr don't work with the Code tag, I will use blind colour codes.

Turn 0That is the starting deployment. Each tech has neutrals equal to its difficulty.

t-o-m wrote:It sounds great!What sort of land layout are you thinking?

I used to love Civ - mainly because of the strategy, but i havnt seen it in a while.

This would truely be an interesting map.

To be honest, I have not decided yet. I think that maybe we could decide it all together. The two possibilites are:

Classic like map: A map representing a geographical area with no unique or special features on it.

Feudal-like map: A map which is almost all of it covered by neutral armies, with just the starting points ocupied by the players at the begining. The good side about this second option is that it allows for unique features. But the bad side is that it could make the map even more complicated. Not only for new players (disencouraging them to play) but also more difficult to develop.

Maybe it would be a good idea to stick with something not too complicated for starters. And if the concept works, there can always be a second version with enhanced more complex concepts?

RjBeals wrote:I must say OliverFA - you deserve a great welcome to the foundry. fresh Ideas and good attitude - exactly what we need around here. I'm partial to classic style gameplay, but have been wanting to broaden my range. I'll try to think through what you've posted so I can grasp the idea better. I hope you stick around here

Thanks so much At last I have realized that this place is a better place to release creativity than the suggestions forum!

I truly hope we can finally develop an entertaining and interesting map

Androidz wrote:Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

It'll be fine i think.

Maybe, maybe not only time will show:)

Excuse my ignorance. But: Which is the size for the board image?

I think it could work because you don't need to make the tech trees are very big. In fact that is why I proposed the "can research any basic tech" focus instead of a true tech tree to avoid having to draw all the arrows.

If it was needed, we could cut it to 6 players to make room, but I think we can make with 8.

Androidz wrote:Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

It'll be fine i think.

Maybe, maybe not only time will show:)

Excuse my ignorance. But: Which is the size for the board image?

I think it could work because you don't need to make the tech trees are very big. In fact that is why I proposed the "can research any basic tech" focus instead of a true tech tree to avoid having to draw all the arrows.

If it was needed, we could cut it to 6 players to make room, but I think we can make with 8.

not sure myself 640pix height and 600 widh or something.

Anyway i retought, this thing and all can use the samce tech tree just divide in colour boxes in 8. so may have right.